WATER P-NOTES ISSUE 28 FEbrUArY 2009 47358 rural Watershed Management The Power of Integration A watershed is an area that supplies water by sur- Integrated WSM--the new way face or subsurface flow to a drainage system or body of water (Figure 1). Watersheds vary from In practice, there are now two basic approaches to a few hectares to thousands of square kilometers. WSM--targeted and mainstreamed. In the first, man- Watershed management (WSM) is the integrated agement interventions address very specific objec- use of land, vegetation, and water in a specific tives and indicators related to water resources and drainage area with the objective of conserving hy- hydrologic outcomes, whereas in the second, the drologic services and reducing or avoiding damage principal focus is on wider goals and objectives, such downstream or underground. as improved management of land or other natural The first generation of WSM projects empha- resources, poverty alleviation, or rural development. sized engineering and civil works. By the end of the Unless land and water interactions and upstream­ 1980s, the comparative failure of this top­down ap- downstream impacts are critical issues, the main- proach was clear. Since the 1990s, WSM programs streamed approach usually makes sense, because have integrated livelihood improvements and poverty it achieves natural resource goals and rural poverty reduction objectives with soil and water conservation. objectives. Most WSM projects funded by the World Bank adopt the Figure 1. The hydrological cycle in a watershed micro-watershed as the basic unit for integration of land, water, and infrastructure de- velopment. It has proved to be a flexible, practical, and economical unit for project implementation. Within the micro-watershed, all stakehold- ers are included in participatory processes that stand or fall on the development of a common purpose, the availability of funds to build capacity, and the establishment of income and livelihood incentives. Source: http:/www.waterencyclopedia.com/Hy-La/Hydrologic-Cycle.html. This note by Jim Smyle, Grant Milne, and Halla Qaddumi summarizes lessons from Watershed Management Approaches, Policies and Operations: Lessons for Scaling-up, by Salah Darghouth, Christopher Ward, Gretel Gambarelli, Erika Styger, and Julienne Roux (Water Sector Board Discussion Paper Series 11, World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2008). Readers may download the full report from http://www.worldbank.org/water. WATER P-NOTES Table 1. Watersheds scale and management focus Watershed Typical Influence of Primary Management Size Land Use on Planning Unit (km2) Hydrology Authority Typical Management Focus Micro-watershed 0.1­1.5 Very strong Property owners (local) Participatory planning: BMPs; site design Sub-watershed 2.5­25 Very strong to Local government w/principal Stream classification; land use plan- strong local stakeholders ning/zoning; land, water resources and stakeholder management Watershed 25­250 Strong to Local or multiple-local Watershed-based zoning; land use Moderate government w/principal and water resources planning; local and regional stake-holder management; policy, stakeholders norms, regulations and incentives Sub-basin 250­ Moderate Local, regional or Basin planning; stakeholder man- 2,500 to weak state w/principal agement; policy, legal framework regional stakeholders and incentives Basin 2,500­ Weak to State, multi-state or federal Basin planning; stakeholder manage- 25,000 very weak w/principal regional and state ment; policy, legal framework and stakeholders incentives Stakeholders will engage in conservation if tification of synergies requires careful analysis of it makes economic sense, yet technically sound social, institutional, economic, and environmental WSM interventions have often neglected financial dynamics. profitability and incentives. Financial and eco- nomic analysis can help design investment pack- ages that achieve conservation objectives while Institutional arrangements for also offering incentives where necessary to ensure collaboration, capacity building, viability. and supportive policy To be sure of capturing upstream and down- stream interactions, interventions must be planned Although integrated WSM can help relieve rural within the larger watershed context and with un- poverty, landless segments of the rural poor have derstanding of the spatial and hydrological links been left out of some projects or have benefited only between perceived externalities and their causal tangentially (for example, from construction jobs). factors. Best practice in this regard includes mecha- Projects often target landed farmers for soil and wa- nisms for: (i) planning processes in which stakehold- ter conservation, while landless people dependent ers have a voice and are able to agree on measures on commonly held natural resources (forests and that can achieve both local and larger-scale objec- grazing lands) suffer from rangeland closure, restric- tives; and (ii) interagency collaboration and co- tions on collecting minor forest products, or other ordination between local and regional authorities conservation interventions. In best-practice projects, and organizations. The China Loess II Project is an however, poverty concerns are addressed through example of an effective process (Box 1). the participatory process. To facilitate participation Properly done, WSM can achieve soil and wa- and maximize poverty reduction, investment pro- ter conservation while simultaneously intensifying grams may aim to establish self-help groups and natural resource use and agriculture to improve income-generating activities. Non-farm activities can rural livelihoods. Success is greatest where com- be an effective alternative to reduce out-migration. munities select from a menu of interventions that Participatory approaches require political com- yield both short- and long-term benefits. The iden- mitment and equitable rules, time for the process 2 ISSUE 28 · FEBRUARY 2009 Box 1. Watershed scales in the China Loess II Project The Loess Plateau covers 640,000 km2 of the drainage basin of the Yellow River. The project is increasing agricul- tural production and incomes, and improving ecological conditions in tributary watersheds of the Yellow River, in par- ticular by reducing sediment overload in the river. The project area contains about 1,100 micro-watersheds ranging from 1,000 ha to 3,000 ha. Counties and micro-watersheds were selected through combined top-down and bottom- up processes, beginning with areas facing the greatest difficulties. Then, sustainable local development plans were designed with the communities. Extensive use was made of maps, both to monitor progress in micro-watersheds and to get an overview of basin-level impacts. to mature, careful sequencing, inclusion of all proaches, often termed "payment for environmental stakeholders, openness of public agencies to the services," have been used with success in some rationale and process of participation, and sus- projects to address externalities. At local levels, tained capacity building at implementing agencies, deals can be organized between upstream and to provide better service, and at the village level, to downstream residents, but as scale and complex- enable farmers to collaborate on management and ity increase, contracts require increased scientific conservation of resources. The interface between knowledge and more institutional capacity. local government, technical agencies, and commu- Paradoxically, basic hydrology has received in- nity organizations needs to be carefully defined and sufficient attention in some WSM projects. It need managed. Natural resource management practices, not be so. New advances in modeling, remote sens- in particular, should reflect local legislation and ing, and GIS can help increase understanding of land-tenure patterns. Common property resources the relationships between water, land, and proposed are a particular challenge for WSM, and a clear WSM interventions. Using these tools, analysis at the policy and legal framework is needed to support ef- basin and sub-basin levels should be conducted to fective management and benefit sharing. support watershed planning. But the new tools have Like participation, decentralization is a hallmark not settled all pertinent questions. In some areas, ad- of integrated WSM. Several countries, such as Brazil, ditional scientific research will be needed to establish China, India, Tunisia, and Turkey (see Box 2), have the hydrological impacts of WSM practices and tech- shown that success in testing participatory approach- nologies, particularly larger-scale forestation under es in one project can lead to adoption of broader varying climatic, soil, and geologic conditions. policies for nationally funded WSM programs. As Climate change is expected to bring increased agencies that provide services across sectors--forest- variability and unpredictability to the water cycle, ry, animal husbandry, veterinary care, irrigation, water with effects on biodiversity and agricultural produc- management, agriculture--increase their collabora- tivity. Greater frequency of high-intensity rainfall of tion, even technical functions may be decentralized. short duration is likely to increase the vulnerability of communities in many watersheds to soil erosion, Monitoring and managing the floods, and damage from debris. Although climate downstream impact of WSM change will have economic and social costs, an projects integrated set of management responses, within an integrated basin planning and WSM framework, can help identify and mitigate those costs. The planning process for any WSM project must balance the community's interests in the micro- Just as the measurement of externalities has watershed with larger resource-conservation been fragmentary in WSM projects, monitoring and objectives. evaluation (M&E) have generally been weak. But the most successful WSM programs track performance A principal attribute of the best integrated against objectives to guide implementation and al- WSM is to manage the downstream impacts--or low for adjustments in inputs, outputs, impacts, out- "externalities"--resulting from upstream land use comes, processes, and institutional arrangements. and water resources interactions. Market-based ap- Useful and affordable tools, such as remote sensing, 3 WATER P-NOTES · First determine if local site conditions require Box 2. Institutional collaboration at an integrated WSM approach or a rural liveli- the local level in Turkey hoods model with minor soil and water conser- The Eastern Anatolia Project helped departments vation inputs; and bureaus, such as soil and water conservation, · Use readily available models for basin or sub- agriculture, livestock and animal husbandry, environ- basin level planning and analyses--then connect ment, and forestry, make joint efforts in planning to micro-watershed delivery; and implementing integrated watershed develop- · Consider starting with pilot projects to learn les- ment works. Capacities were improved to coordinate sons and build experience before scaling up; activities, deliver more effective service, and gain · Recognize that WSM and participatory processes experience in collaborating with farmers. The capac- ity of farmers to collaborate with each other was also need careful design and balancing of objectives strengthened by working together on project-financed to be pro-poor and equitable; investments for management and conservation of · Strengthen the focus on upstream and down- community land resources. stream interrelations, to address potential exter- nalities; · Improve M&E, including monitoring how micro-level activities and institutions upstream GIS, and community-based monitoring are increas- contribute to improved conditions in the wider ingly common for these purposes (see Box 3). watershed; · Include "water" in WSM and take into account how interventions will impact on hydrology; and A recipe for success · Contribute to broader environmental objectives and help communities (especially farmers) adapt World Bank WSM programs have been fairly suc- to climate change. cessful with: · Starting from the building block of the micro- Box 3. Monitoring and evaluation in watershed; Karnataka Watershed, India · Using integrated projects to address watershed and natural resource conservation and livelihood The Karnataka Watershed Development Project offers a best practice example of Monitoring, Learning and objectives; Evaluation (MEL) systems with community driven, inte- · Adopting participatory and decentralized imple- grated watershed development in India. The MEL sys- mentation; tem engages communities, NGOs, government, and a · Supporting demand-driven research and dis- third party technical agency to achieve a robust system semination; and of checks and balances. The planning and monitoring · Mainstreaming WSM into public institutions and process uses remote sensing, GIS, special analyses, national policies. thematic mapping, and a computerized Management Information System to track performance, measure im- But, lessons gained over 15 years suggest that pacts, and guide project implementation. new programs: The Water Sector Board Practitioner Notes (P-Notes) series is published by the Water Sector Board of the Sustainable Development Network of the World Bank Group. P-Notes are available online at www.worldbank.org/water. P-Notes are a synopsis of larger World Bank documents in the water sector. 4 THE WORLD BANK | 1818 H Street, NW | Washington, DC 20433 www.worldbank.org/water | whelpdesk@worldbank.org